| Message ID | 1472676622-32533-19-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > Rproc driver has now the capability to add resources dynamically > thanks to rproc_request_resource API. > Depending on associated action, resource request could impact > firmware resource table or define new local resource. > > In order to preserve current remoteproc resource handling > mechanism, all local resources are gathered in a local resource > table which won't be shared with firmware and proceed by > remoteproc core as firmware one. > > It is rproc driver responsibility to provide the right resource > information using rproc_request_resource API. > > Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > include/linux/remoteproc.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index cbfbdf8..73b460a 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -1270,6 +1270,65 @@ static int rproc_apply_resource_overrides(struct rproc *rproc, > return ret; > } > > +static struct resource_table* > +rproc_local_resource_create(struct rproc *rproc, int *tablesz) Oh, you're happy to use "resource" (instead of rsc) in function names that *you* introduce! ;) > +{ > + struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr; > + struct fw_rsc_spare *spare_rsc; > + struct rproc_request_resource *resource; > + struct resource_table *table = NULL; > + int size = 0, ret; > + > + /* compute total request size */ Grammar. > + list_for_each_entry(resource, &rproc->override_resources, node) { > + if (resource->action == RSC_ACT_LOCAL) > + size += resource->size + sizeof(hdr) + 4; /* entry offset */ > + } The {} are superfluous. Still non sure if that comment helps at all. > + /* any extra resource ? */ /* If there isn't any resource remaining, don't ... XXX */ > + if (!size) > + goto out; > + > + /* add table header and spare resource */ > + size += sizeof(*table); > + size += sizeof(*hdr) + sizeof(*spare_rsc) + 4; > + > + /* create new rsc tbl with only a spare resource */ I would be as forthcoming as possible in comments. Use full/descriptive names for things. > + table = devm_kzalloc(&rproc->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!table) { > + table = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > + goto out; > + } '\n' > + table->ver = 1; > + table->num = 1; > + table->offset[0] = sizeof(*table) + 4; > + > + hdr = (void *)table + table->offset[0]; > + hdr->type = RSC_SPARE; > + > + spare_rsc = (void *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr); > + spare_rsc->len = size - table->offset[0] - sizeof(*hdr) - sizeof(*spare_rsc); > + > + /* add new resource one by one */ "resources" > + list_for_each_entry(resource, &rproc->override_resources, node) { > + if (resource->action == RSC_ACT_LOCAL) { > + /* Create a new enty */ This comment doesn't add any more information than the function name. > + ret = __add_rsc_tbl_entry(rproc, resource, > + table, size); > + if (ret) { > + table = ERR_PTR(ret); > + goto out; > + } > + } > + } > + > + *tablesz = size; > + rproc_dump_resource_table(rproc, table, *tablesz); This is going to add up to a lot of dumps of the resource table? > +out: > + return table; > +} > + > + Superfluous '\n'. > /* > * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it. > */ > @@ -1278,7 +1337,7 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > const char *name = rproc->firmware; > struct resource_table *table, *loaded_table; > - int ret, tablesz; > + int ret, tablesz, local_tablesz; > > ret = rproc_fw_sanity_check(rproc, fw); > if (ret) > @@ -1335,6 +1394,11 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > goto clean_up; > } > > + rproc->local_table = rproc_local_resource_create(rproc, &local_tablesz); > + if (IS_ERR(rproc->local_table)) { > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to create local resource table\n"); > + goto clean_up; > + } > } > > /* reset max_notifyid */ > @@ -1348,6 +1412,13 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > goto clean_up; > } > > + ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc->local_table, > + local_tablesz, rproc_vdev_handler); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to handle vdev resources: %d\n", ret); > + goto clean_up; > + } > + > /* handle fw resources which are required to boot rproc */ > ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc->cached_table, tablesz, > rproc_loading_handlers); > @@ -1356,6 +1427,13 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > goto clean_up; > } > > + ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc->local_table, > + local_tablesz, rproc_loading_handlers); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to handle vdev resources: %d\n", ret); > + goto clean_up; > + } > + > /* load the ELF segments to memory */ > ret = rproc_load_segments(rproc, fw); > if (ret) { > diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h > index 2b0f1d7..653e6f3 100644 > --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h > +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h > @@ -495,6 +495,7 @@ struct rproc { > int max_notifyid; > struct resource_table *table_ptr; > struct resource_table *cached_table; > + struct resource_table *local_table; > bool has_iommu; > bool auto_boot; > }; -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On 09/08/2016 12:20 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > >> Rproc driver has now the capability to add resources dynamically >> thanks to rproc_request_resource API. >> Depending on associated action, resource request could impact >> firmware resource table or define new local resource. >> >> In order to preserve current remoteproc resource handling >> mechanism, all local resources are gathered in a local resource >> table which won't be shared with firmware and proceed by >> remoteproc core as firmware one. >> >> It is rproc driver responsibility to provide the right resource >> information using rproc_request_resource API. >> >> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> >> --- >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> index cbfbdf8..73b460a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> @@ -1270,6 +1270,65 @@ static int rproc_apply_resource_overrides(struct rproc *rproc, >> return ret; >> } >> >> +static struct resource_table* >> +rproc_local_resource_create(struct rproc *rproc, int *tablesz) > > Oh, you're happy to use "resource" (instead of rsc) in function names > that *you* introduce! ;) In fact I changed only rproc_apply_resource_overrides sub functions, don't touch to other. But as mentioned previously, I'll revert name changing and come back to original naming in v3 > >> +{ >> + struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr; >> + struct fw_rsc_spare *spare_rsc; >> + struct rproc_request_resource *resource; >> + struct resource_table *table = NULL; >> + int size = 0, ret; >> + >> + /* compute total request size */ > > Grammar. ok > >> + list_for_each_entry(resource, &rproc->override_resources, node) { >> + if (resource->action == RSC_ACT_LOCAL) >> + size += resource->size + sizeof(hdr) + 4; /* entry offset */ >> + } > > The {} are superfluous. > > Still non sure if that comment helps at all. > >> + /* any extra resource ? */ > > /* If there isn't any resource remaining, don't ... XXX */ > >> + if (!size) >> + goto out; >> + >> + /* add table header and spare resource */ >> + size += sizeof(*table); >> + size += sizeof(*hdr) + sizeof(*spare_rsc) + 4; >> + >> + /* create new rsc tbl with only a spare resource */ > > I would be as forthcoming as possible in comments. Use > full/descriptive names for things. ok > >> + table = devm_kzalloc(&rproc->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!table) { >> + table = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >> + goto out; >> + } > > '\n' ok > >> + table->ver = 1; >> + table->num = 1; >> + table->offset[0] = sizeof(*table) + 4; >> + >> + hdr = (void *)table + table->offset[0]; >> + hdr->type = RSC_SPARE; >> + >> + spare_rsc = (void *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr); >> + spare_rsc->len = size - table->offset[0] - sizeof(*hdr) - sizeof(*spare_rsc); >> + >> + /* add new resource one by one */ > > "resources" thanks > >> + list_for_each_entry(resource, &rproc->override_resources, node) { >> + if (resource->action == RSC_ACT_LOCAL) { >> + /* Create a new enty */ > > This comment doesn't add any more information than the function name. I'll remove > >> + ret = __add_rsc_tbl_entry(rproc, resource, >> + table, size); >> + if (ret) { >> + table = ERR_PTR(ret); >> + goto out; >> + } >> + } >> + } >> + >> + *tablesz = size; >> + rproc_dump_resource_table(rproc, table, *tablesz); > > This is going to add up to a lot of dumps of the resource table? No only once when the complete table is populated > >> +out: >> + return table; >> +} >> + >> + > > Superfluous '\n'. ok Thanks for your review Lee, I'll prepare a V3 including your remarks Regards, Loic > >> /* >> * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it. >> */ >> @@ -1278,7 +1337,7 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) >> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; >> const char *name = rproc->firmware; >> struct resource_table *table, *loaded_table; >> - int ret, tablesz; >> + int ret, tablesz, local_tablesz; >> >> ret = rproc_fw_sanity_check(rproc, fw); >> if (ret) >> @@ -1335,6 +1394,11 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) >> goto clean_up; >> } >> >> + rproc->local_table = rproc_local_resource_create(rproc, &local_tablesz); >> + if (IS_ERR(rproc->local_table)) { >> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to create local resource table\n"); >> + goto clean_up; >> + } >> } >> >> /* reset max_notifyid */ >> @@ -1348,6 +1412,13 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) >> goto clean_up; >> } >> >> + ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc->local_table, >> + local_tablesz, rproc_vdev_handler); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to handle vdev resources: %d\n", ret); >> + goto clean_up; >> + } >> + >> /* handle fw resources which are required to boot rproc */ >> ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc->cached_table, tablesz, >> rproc_loading_handlers); >> @@ -1356,6 +1427,13 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) >> goto clean_up; >> } >> >> + ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc->local_table, >> + local_tablesz, rproc_loading_handlers); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to handle vdev resources: %d\n", ret); >> + goto clean_up; >> + } >> + >> /* load the ELF segments to memory */ >> ret = rproc_load_segments(rproc, fw); >> if (ret) { >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> index 2b0f1d7..653e6f3 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> @@ -495,6 +495,7 @@ struct rproc { >> int max_notifyid; >> struct resource_table *table_ptr; >> struct resource_table *cached_table; >> + struct resource_table *local_table; >> bool has_iommu; >> bool auto_boot; >> }; >
On Wed 31 Aug 13:50 PDT 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > Rproc driver has now the capability to add resources dynamically > thanks to rproc_request_resource API. > Depending on associated action, resource request could impact > firmware resource table or define new local resource. > > In order to preserve current remoteproc resource handling > mechanism, all local resources are gathered in a local resource > table which won't be shared with firmware and proceed by > remoteproc core as firmware one. > > It is rproc driver responsibility to provide the right resource > information using rproc_request_resource API. > > Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > include/linux/remoteproc.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index cbfbdf8..73b460a 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -1270,6 +1270,65 @@ static int rproc_apply_resource_overrides(struct rproc *rproc, > return ret; > } > > +static struct resource_table* > +rproc_local_resource_create(struct rproc *rproc, int *tablesz) The resource table is a persistent data structure and as such it's awkward and inconvenient to operate on. This does, unfortunately, show throughout this series. But to here traverse a list of resources, generate a new table of the left-over ones just so that we can allocate them and put them back on another list is a clear sign to me that we're doing it wrong way. Further more, we will have to support 64 bit addresses in the firmware so I do not want to lock in the core implementation in version 1 of the resource table format. Rather than using the resource tables directly I think we should parse the resource table into lists of objects that are convenient to operate on. While doing this we can squash "duplicates" and validate that they are compatible. This allows the driver to (optionally) register static resources and the resource table parser to (optionally!) register firmware resources. We would then traverse these lists and if resources are referenced update the resource table entries - i.e. like vrings are handled already. We can do this two ways: 1) As we register entries in these lists we check for previous allocations and fall back to allocate the resources directly. Allowing the drivers to fill in the lists and override resources from the table parser. A drawback with this approach is that driver-registered resources must stay allocated throughout the driver's life cycle. 2) We defer allocations to after we've built up the resource lists, allowing the static/driver resources to be allocated as we boot the rproc. Grouping the allocations would, likely, make it easier to reason about error paths etc. Regards, Bjorn
On 09/15/2016 08:58 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Wed 31 Aug 13:50 PDT 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > >> Rproc driver has now the capability to add resources dynamically >> thanks to rproc_request_resource API. >> Depending on associated action, resource request could impact >> firmware resource table or define new local resource. >> >> In order to preserve current remoteproc resource handling >> mechanism, all local resources are gathered in a local resource >> table which won't be shared with firmware and proceed by >> remoteproc core as firmware one. >> >> It is rproc driver responsibility to provide the right resource >> information using rproc_request_resource API. >> >> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> >> --- >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> index cbfbdf8..73b460a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> @@ -1270,6 +1270,65 @@ static int rproc_apply_resource_overrides(struct rproc *rproc, >> return ret; >> } >> >> +static struct resource_table* >> +rproc_local_resource_create(struct rproc *rproc, int *tablesz) > > The resource table is a persistent data structure and as such it's > awkward and inconvenient to operate on. This does, unfortunately, show > throughout this series. > > But to here traverse a list of resources, generate a new table of the > left-over ones just so that we can allocate them and put them back on > another list is a clear sign to me that we're doing it wrong way. Ok goal was to keep current resource allocation mechanism without changing current rproc_handle_xxx functions. The idea was to avoid fake resource table creation at rproc driver level... > > Further more, we will have to support 64 bit addresses in the firmware > so I do not want to lock in the core implementation in version 1 of the > resource table format. > > > > Rather than using the resource tables directly I think we should parse > the resource table into lists of objects that are convenient to operate > on. While doing this we can squash "duplicates" and validate that they > are compatible. Yes possible to keep only internal list of request. > > This allows the driver to (optionally) register static resources > and the resource table parser to (optionally!) register firmware > resources. We would then traverse these lists and if resources are > referenced update the resource table entries - i.e. like vrings are > handled already. > > > We can do this two ways: > 1) As we register entries in these lists we check for previous > allocations and fall back to allocate the resources directly. Allowing > the drivers to fill in the lists and override resources from the table > parser. A drawback with this approach is that driver-registered > resources must stay allocated throughout the driver's life cycle. > > 2) We defer allocations to after we've built up the resource lists, > allowing the static/driver resources to be allocated as we boot the > rproc. Grouping the allocations would, likely, make it easier to reason > about error paths etc. > As we are discussing specific rproc allocation in another thread and that local resource management is linked to, I propose to drop local resource concept from this series and come back later with a solution alignment with dedicated rproc memory chunk management. Regards, Loic > Regards, > Bjorn >
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c index cbfbdf8..73b460a 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c @@ -1270,6 +1270,65 @@ static int rproc_apply_resource_overrides(struct rproc *rproc, return ret; } +static struct resource_table* +rproc_local_resource_create(struct rproc *rproc, int *tablesz) +{ + struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr; + struct fw_rsc_spare *spare_rsc; + struct rproc_request_resource *resource; + struct resource_table *table = NULL; + int size = 0, ret; + + /* compute total request size */ + list_for_each_entry(resource, &rproc->override_resources, node) { + if (resource->action == RSC_ACT_LOCAL) + size += resource->size + sizeof(hdr) + 4; /* entry offset */ + } + + /* any extra resource ? */ + if (!size) + goto out; + + /* add table header and spare resource */ + size += sizeof(*table); + size += sizeof(*hdr) + sizeof(*spare_rsc) + 4; + + /* create new rsc tbl with only a spare resource */ + table = devm_kzalloc(&rproc->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL); + if (!table) { + table = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + goto out; + } + table->ver = 1; + table->num = 1; + table->offset[0] = sizeof(*table) + 4; + + hdr = (void *)table + table->offset[0]; + hdr->type = RSC_SPARE; + + spare_rsc = (void *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr); + spare_rsc->len = size - table->offset[0] - sizeof(*hdr) - sizeof(*spare_rsc); + + /* add new resource one by one */ + list_for_each_entry(resource, &rproc->override_resources, node) { + if (resource->action == RSC_ACT_LOCAL) { + /* Create a new enty */ + ret = __add_rsc_tbl_entry(rproc, resource, + table, size); + if (ret) { + table = ERR_PTR(ret); + goto out; + } + } + } + + *tablesz = size; + rproc_dump_resource_table(rproc, table, *tablesz); +out: + return table; +} + + /* * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it. */ @@ -1278,7 +1337,7 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; const char *name = rproc->firmware; struct resource_table *table, *loaded_table; - int ret, tablesz; + int ret, tablesz, local_tablesz; ret = rproc_fw_sanity_check(rproc, fw); if (ret) @@ -1335,6 +1394,11 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) goto clean_up; } + rproc->local_table = rproc_local_resource_create(rproc, &local_tablesz); + if (IS_ERR(rproc->local_table)) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to create local resource table\n"); + goto clean_up; + } } /* reset max_notifyid */ @@ -1348,6 +1412,13 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) goto clean_up; } + ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc->local_table, + local_tablesz, rproc_vdev_handler); + if (ret) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to handle vdev resources: %d\n", ret); + goto clean_up; + } + /* handle fw resources which are required to boot rproc */ ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc->cached_table, tablesz, rproc_loading_handlers); @@ -1356,6 +1427,13 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) goto clean_up; } + ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc->local_table, + local_tablesz, rproc_loading_handlers); + if (ret) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to handle vdev resources: %d\n", ret); + goto clean_up; + } + /* load the ELF segments to memory */ ret = rproc_load_segments(rproc, fw); if (ret) { diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h index 2b0f1d7..653e6f3 100644 --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h @@ -495,6 +495,7 @@ struct rproc { int max_notifyid; struct resource_table *table_ptr; struct resource_table *cached_table; + struct resource_table *local_table; bool has_iommu; bool auto_boot; };
Rproc driver has now the capability to add resources dynamically thanks to rproc_request_resource API. Depending on associated action, resource request could impact firmware resource table or define new local resource. In order to preserve current remoteproc resource handling mechanism, all local resources are gathered in a local resource table which won't be shared with firmware and proceed by remoteproc core as firmware one. It is rproc driver responsibility to provide the right resource information using rproc_request_resource API. Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> --- drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- include/linux/remoteproc.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 1.9.1